EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is part of a series that is sponsored by WebRecon. WebRecon identifies serial plaintiffs lurking in your database BEFORE you contact them and expose yourself to a likely lawsuit. Protect your company from as many as one in three new consumer lawsuits by scrubbing your consumers through WebRecon first. Want to learn more? Call (855) WEB-RECON or email admin@webrecon.net today! Thanks to WebRecon for sponsoring this series.
DISCLAIMER: This article is based on a complaint. The defendant has not responded to the complaint to present its side of the case. The claims mentioned are accusations and should be considered as such until and unless proven otherwise.
Anyone who has been in this industry for more than a minute knows that there are waves of lawsuits. When the original Hunstein ruling came out 18 months ago, there were thousands of copycat lawsuits filed making the exact same claim. It’s the same way with other aspects of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and now, Regulation F. The latest trend is lawsuits filed against collectors accusing them of continuing to call after the plaintiff expresses that he or she no longer wishes to be contacted.
One example of that is a lawsuit against a collector, originally filed state court, but subsequently removed to the District Court for the Southern District of Florida, with a case number 22-cv-22900, by the defendant.
The defendant is accused of contacting the plaintiff using multiple phone numbers and using an artificial or pre-recorded voice to leave messages for the plaintiff. The plaintiff is accusing the defendant of making hundreds of calls using the artificial or pre-recorded voice. Twice, the plaintiff allegedly contacted the defendant and asked for all collection communication to stop. Twice, the representative of the defendant allegedly used vulgar and obscene language in response to the request. During one of the calls, the representative allegedly said that the calls would continue, using the word “deadbeat” to describe the plaintiff.
A number of similar cases — in which the plaintiff accuses the defendant of ignoring requests from the plaintiff to cease communications — have been filed in courts across the country.
In this case, the defendant is accused of violating the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
